[llvm-commits] [PATCH] MipsJITInfo.cpp on OpenBSD
petarj at mips.com
Wed Jan 2 17:16:16 PST 2013
The patch looks ok to me, and I am fine it gets committed if it resolves a real issue for someone. Is there a real issue behind?
I mean, if you can already patch it locally and compile it, is there a burden of having that as a local patch?
The thing is that patches like this one reduce readability, and the only benefit is that we can still use the old toolchain that does not recognize symbolic names.
Can you work the other way and update/patch the binutils so it recognizes symbolic register names?
From: Brian Callahan <bcallah at devio.us<mailto:bcallah at devio.us>>
Date: Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 11:48 AM
Subject: [llvm-commits] [PATCH] MipsJITInfo.cpp on OpenBSD
To: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu<mailto:llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu>
Hi list --
A few days ago I submitted a patch to the LLVM Bugzilla (http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14721) regarding an LLVM build failure on OpenBSD/mips64el. I was asked to send the patch here.
Here is a summary of the bug report:
Mips register patch
binutils on OpenBSD is quite old, which causes the build on mips64el to fail on MipsJITInfo.cpp - it complains of illegal operands. The attachment patches it so that it will build. All the patch does is replace the register aliases with the actual register (i.e. changing $t8 to $24). The registers are identical to both mips and mips64, so it should not disrupt 32-bit Mips builds.
The patch attached to this email is slightly different from the one submitted to Bugzilla, this patch supersedes the Bugzilla one.
I am not subscribed to this list; please CC me on any replies.
llvm-commits mailing list
llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu<mailto:llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-commits